The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.

Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

A sail in what medium?

Nothing. Momentum from nothing.

There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.

The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.

Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

A sail in what medium?

Nothing. Momentum from nothing.

There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.

Well as long as you understand that you are getting momentum from nothing then fine. I have no problem with oddball theories as long as you follow the logic all the way through. I'm not getting how this can be called a sail but whatever. You are also in stark disagreement with Shawyer here. That isn't a bad thing as I actually agree with you. The problem is Shawyer is wrong in a very simple and obvious way. That utterly destroys any confidence that he is competent to be involved at all. There are still the other tests but they have their own problems with frame dependence and such that they need to address.

And as for my emotional attachment to my "world view" I'm sorry but that's crap. I only note that COM, COE and frame independence are very useful principles and violating them is extremely problematical. If you can do it then my hats off to you but until then my Bayesian priors are elsewhere to say the least.

This idea of "emotional attachment" often comes up in fringe subjects. From bigfoot and UFOs to cold fusion the claim is made that people are only protecting the status quo because they have so much invested in it. Emotionally, professionally, financially they are committed. This argument rarely works out. Proponents of cold fusion for example charged that there was a "hot fusion mafia" actively opposing cold fusion research. How did that work out for them? I will leave bigfoot and UFOs for you to ponder.

I could offer the counter proposition that people are emotionally drawn to these kinds of hopeful theories. Christians who are sure the second coming is just around the corner. Spiritualists who believe in ghosts and a rich rewarding afterlife. UFO buffs with "I want to believe" t-shirts. And yes space buffs who would really like to have a reactionless drive. Me? I have a lotto ticket that I'm sure has a good chance this week. I think history is much kinder to this proposition than it is to yours.

The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.

Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.

Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

A sail in what medium?

Nothing. Momentum from nothing.

There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.

Well as long as you understand that you are getting momentum from nothing then fine. I have no problem with oddball theories as long as you follow the logic all the way through. I'm not getting how this can be called a sail but whatever. You are also in stark disagreement with Shawyer here. That isn't a bad thing as I actually agree with you. The problem is Shawyer is wrong in a very simple and obvious way. That utterly destroys any confidence that he is competent to be involved at all. There are still the other tests but they have their own problems with frame dependence and such that they need to address.

And as for my emotional attachment to my "world view" I'm sorry but that's crap. I only note that COM, COE and frame independence are very useful principles and violating them is extremely problematical. If you can do it then my hats off to you but until then my Bayesian priors are elsewhere to say the least.

This idea of "emotional attachment" often comes up in fringe subjects. From bigfoot and UFOs to cold fusion the claim is made that people are only protecting the status quo because they have so much invested in it. Emotionally, professionally, financially they are committed. This argument rarely works out. Proponents of cold fusion for example charged that there was a "hot fusion mafia" actively opposing cold fusion research. How did that work out for them? I will leave bigfoot and UFOs for you to ponder.

I could offer the counter proposition that people are emotionally drawn to these kinds of hopeful theories. Christians who are sure the second coming is just around the corner. Spiritualists who believe in ghosts and a rich rewarding afterlife. UFO buffs with "I want to believe" t-shirts. And yes space buffs who would really like to have a reactionless drive. Me? I have a lotto ticket that I'm sure has a good chance this week. I think history is much kinder to this proposition than it is to yours.

From my part, I will be very happy when we reach a closure about this. Whatever that is.

If after doing the replications, the experiments say "It doesn't work, it's a fluke/a mistake/a fraud", I'll be very relieved that science have been made and another dead end has been rooted out.

The same in case of having positive results. The truth, whatever that is, has to come out.

What I would be very disappointed to see, is for the experiments to be never performed or concluded, because pre-conceptions prevent us from properly validating things out.

Happily, this proposals seems to have already entered into popular consciousness, and people, those most unruly and disobedient things, will check things out now. For good or bad for the proposal and/or its critics, they will see it by themselves.

It isn't like this is the LHC or ITER either. You don't need billions of dollars for testing this out. It is really cheap, as potential breakthrough-testing setups go.

So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.

Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.

If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.

I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;

As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;

v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)

Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.

c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.

The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,

K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)

For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.

There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.

Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.

Here is how it conserves momentum;

In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,

p => p*sqrt(K)

In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.

However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.

The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.

Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.

When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.

(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,

p => p*sqrt(K)

THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.

Regards,Todd D.

What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?

The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.

Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

A sail in what medium?

Nothing. Momentum from nothing.

There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.

Well as long as you understand that you are getting momentum from nothing then fine. I have no problem with oddball theories as long as you follow the logic all the way through. I'm not getting how this can be called a sail but whatever. You are also in stark disagreement with Shawyer here. That isn't a bad thing as I actually agree with you. The problem is Shawyer is wrong in a very simple and obvious way. That utterly destroys any confidence that he is competent to be involved at all. There are still the other tests but they have their own problems with frame dependence and such that they need to address.

And as for my emotional attachment to my "world view" I'm sorry but that's crap. I only note that COM, COE and frame independence are very useful principles and violating them is extremely problematical. If you can do it then my hats off to you but until then my Bayesian priors are elsewhere to say the least.

This idea of "emotional attachment" often comes up in fringe subjects. From bigfoot and UFOs to cold fusion the claim is made that people are only protecting the status quo because they have so much invested in it. Emotionally, professionally, financially they are committed. This argument rarely works out. Proponents of cold fusion for example charged that there was a "hot fusion mafia" actively opposing cold fusion research. How did that work out for them? I will leave bigfoot and UFOs for you to ponder.

I could offer the counter proposition that people are emotionally drawn to these kinds of hopeful theories. Christians who are sure the second coming is just around the corner. Spiritualists who believe in ghosts and a rich rewarding afterlife. UFO buffs with "I want to believe" t-shirts. And yes space buffs who would really like to have a reactionless drive. Me? I have a lotto ticket that I'm sure has a good chance this week. I think history is much kinder to this proposition than it is to yours.

From my part, I will be very happy when we reach a closure about this. Whatever that is.

If after doing the replications, the experiments say "It doesn't work, it's a fluke/a mistake/a fraud", I'll be very relieved that science have been made and another dead end has been rooted out.

The same in case of having positive results. The truth, whatever that is, has to come out.

What I would be very disappointed to see, is for the experiments to be never performed or concluded, because pre-conceptions prevent us from properly validating things out.

Happily, this proposals seems to have already entered into popular consciousness, and people, those most unruly and disobedient things, will check things out now. For good or bad for the proposal and/or its critics, they will see it by themselves.

It isn't like this is the LHC or ITER either. You don't need billions of dollars for testing this out. It is really cheap, as potential breakthrough-testing setups go.

But you see there will never ever ever be closure. There was not closure for cold fusion. The latest conference was just last month. There was not closure with UFOs, just watch the history channel. My lotto tick my not win but there is always next week. Whatever experiment that is done there will be objections that it was not done correctly.

And if there is an effect there is no doubt that it will be discovered. In fact the main thing that convinces me that there is no effect is that it has not been discovered already.

And yes the experiments are pretty cheap. If there were any detectable probability of success the free market would be all over this. You don't need public spending for something like this. Not that I really object much to public spending.

The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.

Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

A sail in what medium?

Nothing. Momentum from nothing.

There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.

No, not momentum from nothing. Thank you for the links to these papers about Casimir momenta, as they are quite interesting from a pure physics standpoint. Fiegel's 2004 paper is unfortunately rather mathematically dense, if coherent. I will direct you to a different mathematical approach (using Green's functions, rather than QED considerations) by Birkeland and Brevik: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.2528v2.pdf You may find the discussion section (at the very end) very illuminating.

Unfortunately, they also show that this momentum is not generated from nothing. I quote:

Quote

. On physical grounds one may ask: where does the net electromagneticmomentum come from? Obviously, it cannot come from ’nothing’. We areactually comparing two different physical situations here. The first is whenthe conducting plates are infinitely far separated. This is our initial ’vacuum’state. The final state is when the plates have been brought close to each other,infinitely slowly.

We can think of this situation analogously to many others incorporating "hidden momentum" in E&M theory, in more conventional situations. An additional momentum appears because we have not fully accounted for momentum in our initial conditions. Please see this excellent paper by Babson, Reynolds, Bjorkquist and Griffiths (I believe with some googling you might be able to find a colloquium he gave on the subject): http://gr.physics.ncsu.edu/files/babson_ajp_77_826_09.pdf

These are rather subtle theoretical points, and probably not well appreciated by most physicists, who for the most part have not thought about electromagnetic theory since fighting through Jackson problems through graduate school.

However, the end result is always the same: we cannot get something for nothing. Conservation of momentum relies on translational invariance of the theory, which is strictly preserved in all reasonable physical theories. There simply is no evidence that we need anything beyond simple E&M to understand the physics of the EM drive.

Besides, consider the prediction of the momentum imbalance [really referring to a difference in momentum between left and right propagating fields due to the chiral nature of the dielectric] derived by Birkeland and Brevik -- equation 89 in their paper. The pre-factor before chi is on the order of 10^(-21), even for plates separated by 1 micron... and chi is a small parameter [especially in vacuum, whose biefringence is negligible until you reach incredibly high magnetic fields]. I think we can rule out "Casimir momentum"-type explanations for the EM drive.

Speaking to your comment... why do you discount the possibility that what the experimentalists are telling us is that they have not accounted for all sources of error? Occam's razor would after all lead us to this explanation. The barely repeatable 'thrusts', the differences when pointing in different directions (even in vacuum) also lead us to this conclusion.

And why do you discount the many, far more precise experiments testing E&M and special relativity that this drive clearly violates? The preponderance of even experimental evidence is not in favor of the EM drive being a real effect.

I am looking forward to the July experiments as well, so we can conclusively put this to bed. I still can't understand why the first thought wasn't to fully enclose the test article and RF supply and do a torsion pendulum type experiment. It's obvious, and if it was good enough for Cavendish it should be good enough for NASA.

One final point: criticism based on existing theory is a perfectly valid way to judge experiments. It happens all the time when scientists submit grant proposals or papers for review. And the comments in this forum have been far less vicious than what you see every day as a working scientist...

Let the experiments do the talking, become your own worst critic, and find the truth regardless if that inconveniences some or most people's preconceptions. Including yours.

This is the point we should be starting at. This is why I suggested an affordable experiment design. I'd love to see more affordable experiment designs by others. Even if an idea seems like it may not pan out, or uses old tools, it's better to have the means to falsify an idea than to argue theory until we're blue in the face.

I like theory. It's fun! But experimentalists are the ultimate moderators.

So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.

Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.

If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.

I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;

As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;

v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)

Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.

c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.

The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,

K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)

For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.

There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.

Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.

Here is how it conserves momentum;

In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,

p => p*sqrt(K)

In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.

However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.

The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.

Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.

When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.

(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,

p => p*sqrt(K)

THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.

Regards,Todd D.

What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?

Regards,

JR

Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;

p = h/lambda

wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.

That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.

I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.

The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.

Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

It looks more to me like a form of "frame dragging" propulsion. Where its cryptic is that the "details" and "model" might depend on dragging in e/m field mesh, or gravitational field mesh - that's not consistent.

Also, group and phase velocities seem to be not kept straight. That might be where the "unacceptable" to many aspects might come in. Alternatively, a juxtaposition of "near field" and "far field" terms could be present here, and a form of chaotic leveraging explains some of these experimental results. In that case, the reconciliation of where the forces come from is tedious examination of apparatus to follow a chain.

So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.

Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.

If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.

I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;

As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;

v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)

Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.

c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.

The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,

K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)

For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.

There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.

Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.

Here is how it conserves momentum;

In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,

p => p*sqrt(K)

In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.

However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.

The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.

Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.

When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.

(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,

p => p*sqrt(K)

THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.

Regards,Todd D.

What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?

Regards,

JR

Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;

p = h/lambda

wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.

That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.

I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.

Todd D.

Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.

And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.

Big spike at 1.89 GHz. Is this ideal cavity resonance? Believe I read a circulator is used to deal with isolating standing waves from the signal source. Any standing wave/return loss measurements been made on the frustrum?

What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?

Regards,

JR

Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;

p = h/lambda

wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.

That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.

I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.

Todd D.

What is the acceleration vs. time profile that you envision out of your model under a constant power input? Would it be like a short-time impulse or a Dirac delta function when the system is energized? or would it be a constant acceleration forever and ever under a constant power input ? (in which case it is extremely difficult to understand how momentum would be conserved with a completely enclosed metallic cavity and it would also appear to involve an energy paradox)

Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;

p = h/lambda

wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.

That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.

I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.

Todd D.

Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.

And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.

If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative.

As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.

Big spike at 1.89 GHz. Is this ideal cavity resonance? Believe I read a circulator is used to deal with isolating standing waves from the signal source. Any standing wave/return loss measurements been made on the frustrum?

There is a dual directional coupler to take the measurements, it feeds a 2' cable to the frustum. I don't think he could hang the ddc directly to the frustum without compromising the thrust measurement.

Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;

p = h/lambda

wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.

That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.

I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.

Todd D.

Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.

And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.

If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative.

As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.

Best Regards,Todd D.

I don't believe GR is even relevant but even if it were it makes no difference.

Take your engine. No power attached, no resonance it is just cold and dead. Calculate the momentum of the entire system. By whatever definition of momentum you are using.

Turn on the power. Now you can have imbalanced momentum, resonance whatever you want. I don't care. Let it accelerate up to some velocity.

Turn it back off. Let it cool to a cold dead object again. Melt it down to a simple copper sphere if you want. Now calculate the momentum of the system. Again by whatever definition of momentum you are using.

If the second calculation does not equal the first then you have violated COM. GR never enters into it because any definition of momentum must reduce to Newtonian momentum on the limit of ordinary objects moving at small speeds in flat space. That value is not conserved and therefore your GR did not conserve momentum. The whole point of momentum is as a conserved value that prevents this kind of thing. Take that away and the whole concept of momentum isn't very useful.

There is no reasonable definition of momentum that can call this a conservation of momentum. There is no reason to even want to. Bite the bullet and call it what it is.

If you want a mechanism for GR to violate COM that's fine with me. But you do have to call it what it is. And you will have problems showing a detectable GR effect on these energy scales.

Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;

p = h/lambda

wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.

That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.

I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.

Todd D.

Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.

And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.

If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative.

As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.

Best Regards,Todd D.

I don't believe GR is even relevant but even if it were it makes no difference.

Take your engine. No power attached, no resonance it is just cold and dead. Calculate the momentum of the entire system. By whatever definition of momentum you are using.

Turn on the power. Now you can have imbalanced momentum, resonance whatever you want. I don't care. Let it accelerate up to some velocity.

Turn it back off. Let it cool to a cold dead object again. Melt it down to a simple copper sphere if you want. Now calculate the momentum of the system. Again by whatever definition of momentum you are using.

If the second calculation does not equal the first then you have violated COM. GR never enters into it because any definition of momentum must reduce to Newtonian momentum on the limit of ordinary objects moving at small speeds in flat space. That value is not conserved and therefore your GR did not conserve momentum. The whole point of momentum is as a conserved value that prevents this kind of thing. Take that away and the whole concept of momentum isn't very useful.

There is no reasonable definition of momentum that can call this a conservation of momentum. There is no reason to even want to. Bite the bullet and call it what it is.

If you want a mechanism for GR to violate COM that's fine with me. But you do have to call it what it is. And you will have problems showing a detectable GR effect on these energy scales.

You puff and blow, but EW is trying to eliminate external forces and so investigate *anomalous forces*I support them in a difficult task... Do you?

Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;

p = h/lambda

wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.

That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.

I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.

Todd D.

Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.

And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.

If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative.

As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.

Best Regards,Todd D.

I don't believe GR is even relevant but even if it were it makes no difference.

Take your engine. No power attached, no resonance it is just cold and dead. Calculate the momentum of the entire system. By whatever definition of momentum you are using.

Turn on the power. Now you can have imbalanced momentum, resonance whatever you want. I don't care. Let it accelerate up to some velocity.

Turn it back off. Let it cool to a cold dead object again. Melt it down to a simple copper sphere if you want. Now calculate the momentum of the system. Again by whatever definition of momentum you are using.

If the second calculation does not equal the first then you have violated COM. GR never enters into it because any definition of momentum must reduce to Newtonian momentum on the limit of ordinary objects moving at small speeds in flat space. That value is not conserved and therefore your GR did not conserve momentum. The whole point of momentum is as a conserved value that prevents this kind of thing. Take that away and the whole concept of momentum isn't very useful.

There is no reasonable definition of momentum that can call this a conservation of momentum. There is no reason to even want to. Bite the bullet and call it what it is.

If you want a mechanism for GR to violate COM that's fine with me. But you do have to call it what it is. And you will have problems showing a detectable GR effect on these energy scales.

You puff and blow, but EW is trying to eliminate external forces and so investigate *anomalous forces*I support them in a difficult task... Do you?

My support isn't going to help him and my opposition isn't going to harm him. I strongly encourage everyone to do what they think is useful. I am doing the same.